Lochner v New York

Notable Items:

Facts:

• Section 110 of New York Labor Law limits the hours of bakers, etc. to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week.
• Lochner of Utica, New York employed a person counter to statute.
• Convicted and fined $25.
• Second offense, Lochner demurred to the indictment claiming that the facts did not constitute a crime.
• Overruled. Refused to plea. Not guitly entered on Lochner's behalf.
• Convicted and fined $50 with confinement up to 50 days or till paid.
• Judge provided a "certificate of reasonable doubt" whereupon appealed to Appellate Division of the [state] Supreme Court and affirmed.
• Appealed to Court of Appeals and re-affirmed.
• Certiorari granted.

Issues:

Holding

Rationale

Peckham majority opinion.

• "Under that provision [14th], no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
• Right to contract, including selling and purchasing labor, is a liberty protected. (Not property? How one disposes (selling) one's time is not property?)
• sidebar...there are preventable contracts such as in (1) inviolation of statue, (2) let property for immoral use, (3) to do an unlawful act.
• Constitutional to limit work hours based upon the job, such as underground mining and smelting/refining. An exercise of police power regarding health of the workers.
• sidebar...emergency exceptions to the law limiting hour spent mining or smelting/refining.
• Police power includes prohibiting not charity or necessity work on Sunday. An exercise of police power regarding public morals?
• Fundamental Question: is this a "fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power" or "an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual"?
• This labor act "... involves neither the safety, the morals, nor the welfare of the public ...."
• Therefore not a valid exercise of state police power.
• Reversed and remanded.
• PROBLEM: Declares there is no health issue. Does not address health data available at the time.
• PROBLEM: Does not consider any limit on number of hours per day (20 okay?)

Harlan dissent. White and Day concur.

• It is within the police power of the state to impose upon liberties to protect the safety, health, morals, ... of both the public and the inidividual.
• The New York legislature exercised its police powers to limit work hours of bakers to ensure their health and wellbeing based upon medical determinations and empiricial data available.
• The statute is not plainly and palpably inconsistent with the Constitution.
• THEREFORE: It is NOT within the purview of this court to second guess the legislature.
• "... [police] power extends at least to the protection of the lives, the health, and the safety of the public against the injurious exercise by any citizen of his own rights."
• "... rights given by the Constitution cannot be impaired by state legislation of any kind ..."
• "... neither the [14th] Amendment ... nor any other Amendment was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people."
• "... occupations which are dangerous, or so far detrimental to the health of the employees as to demand special precautions for their wellbeing and protection, or the safety of adjacent property."
• "... vested in the legislature to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests."
• "... the right of contract was not 'absolute in respect to every matter, but may be subjected to the restraints demanded by the safety and welfare of the State.' "
• "... a legislative enactment, Federal or state, is never to be disregarded or held invalid unless it be, beyond question, plainly and palpably in excess of legislative power."
• "... the power of the courts to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare exists only 'when ... that which the legislature has done ... beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law' "
• "It is plain that this statute was enacted in order to protect the physical wellbeing of those who work in bakery and confectionery establishments."
• Medical determinations and empiricial data cited.
• "... that ought to be the end of this case, for the State is not amenable to the judiciary in respect of its legislative enactments unless such enactments are plainly, palpably, beyond all question, inconsistent with the Constitution ...."

Holmes dissent

• Liberty does not include thwarting majority opinion (legislation) unless the statue(s) infringe fundamental principles.
• "... nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law."
• "I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law."